but that’s not a true statement, according to the data already provided in this link. (no wonder it’s taking so long) Specifically, we have
from this posted above by urban, and referenced also in a larger grouping of cites that I’d posted.
The point that everyone is trying to make, Tedster, is that men who have never had an adult homosexual experience are no less likely to abuse young boys than men who have. So, prohibiting known sodimites from positions of authority over children and our young people is a prejudiced position. It is not any safer for the children.
Those “cites” are just sophistry and semantics- Philosophical masturbation. Note how it says “not likely to be homosexual”; Once again, I never said they were!
Still, if buggering little kids is how you want to define a part of heterosexuality go ahead, just don’t expect anyone to really believe that.
Draw us a picture, Tedster.
In order that we may minimize any confusion that may be engendered in the discussion of a controversial topic, I officialy invite you to spell out exactly whom you refer to with the word “Heterosexual”, above.
I also invite you to spell out exactly whom you refer to with the term “known sodomites”.
I’d also like to remind you that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the decision each individual makes of whether to engage in sexual activity or to remain celibate.
BTW, if you decide to define a heterosexual as “a sexually mature human being who is not sexually attracted to anyone except sexually mature human beings of the opposite gender”, you should really allow others to define a homosexual as narrowly; i.e.“a sexually mature human being who is not sexually attracted to anyone except sexually mature human beings of the same gender.”
Keep this in mind when you then try to defend the position that homosexual men are, by the sole virtue of their sexual orientation, unfit to be scoutmasters.
And besides that, what word do you use to label the sexual orientation of sexually mature human beings who can be sexually attracted to sexually immature human beings of a.)the same gender; and b.) the opposite gender.
Again, please be reminded that (the orientation) /= (the behavior).
and not necessarily conversant with all of the arcane forms we use, **/= ** is short for is not equal to.
I believe part of Ted’s point is that a male sleeping with boys is by definition homosexual. At least participating in a homosexual act. That does not make all homosexuals interested in immature boys. Just males having sex with boys is same sex.
Of course by no means does that translate that men sexually interested in other men are more likely to molest boys than men sexually interested in women.
Tedster said:
No, nobody is trying to say that heterosexuality requires molesting children of either gender. But you sure seem to be implying that molesting children is required of homosexuals.
Nothing about your position sounds like tolerance. As for known sodomites, surely you don’t mean to imply that homosexuals are the only people to engage in anal sex? And while we’re talking about sexual proclivities and role models, is it okay to have a single male who regularly has one night stands? Is it any less offensive to have a wife beater as a scoutmaster? Hey, he’s heterosexual.
Perhaps a better starting point would be for you to define what makes a good role model, in your opinion?
actually, Irish the way I read ole Tedsters point, it was something to the effect that if the person molested little boys, they were by definition, not a heterosexual. However, as the links show, there are a multitude of combinations:
-
People who are only interested sexually in children -
of those people, some may only be interested in female children, some only in male children and some in either. These would be correctly identified ‘sexually’ as a pedophile (IMHO). -
People who are interested sexually in adults (same, opposite sex, or either) and in children (same sex, opposite sex or either) these may classify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual and or/bisexual. But the idea that only a homosexual male would molest male children is not fact. And that is what he apparently believes.
I understand that it can be confusing, since both the homosexual male and the person molesting male children are having sexual contact with some one who has a penis. However, the sexual attraction to a child is absolutely a different category and unrelated to one’s sexual preference in adult situations.
Tedster,
You know, by “known sodomites”, you are including any guy that admitting getting a blow job from his wife.
Also, I’m really having trouble seeing how prohibiting homosexuals (leaving aside any other “known sodomites” such as our illustrious former President) from positions of authority over children is tolerant. A “known sodomite” in a position of authority is no more likely to molest children than a priest, minister, schoolteacher, etc. who has no history of known sodomy.
Discriminating against homosexuals is impossible. What is possible is to discriminate against people who identify themselves as homosexuals. You may consider the molestation of little boys something that defines someone as a homosexual. However, a person who does such things is not going to be prevented from being a scoutmaster by the exclusion of homosexuals (unless you can read their mind, in which case you could narrow your exclusion to child molesters, and there would be no problem). A child molester is at least as likely to be a man who seems happily married to a woman and an upstanding member of society as he is to be an unmarried, openly homosexual man.
Opengrave, since you seem to have more in-depth experience with the Boy Scouts than I do, I’d be interested in whether you agree with my assertion that the anti-gay policy has no bearing on preventing bad things from happening.
In my direct experience the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy has little (almost no) bearing on preventing bad things from happening. The situation it might help to prevent is the 25 year old homosexual leader interacting with an older (16 - 18 yrs.) homosexual scout.
Im really busy so the long-drawn-out-point-by-point will have to be posted tomorrow.
In my direct experience the Boy Scouts anti-gay policy has little (almost no) bearing on preventing bad things from happening. The situation it might help to prevent is the 25 year old homosexual leader interacting with an older (16 - 18 yrs.) homosexual scout.
I’m really busy so the long-drawn-out-point-by-point will have to be posted tomorrow.
My understanding of the Boy Scout policy on homosexuals is they feel homosexual = bad. In fact, they now like to quote the Scout Law where it says a scout will be “morally straight” to imply that means no gays.
They don’t want a homosexual leader because they don’t think a homosexual is a proper role model. Heaven forbid some scout see that and think “I can be a homosexual too.”
But they have instituted the 2 adult rule. This is not so much because they don’t trust the leaders (though that could be a problem, it is not the main basis) but rather they want to prevent any possibility of accusations. No adult is to be alone with a child. Private conferences have to be in sight of other people (door open, across a large room, other side of a field). This is to prevent the possibility of occurrences of abuse, but because they don’t think scoutmasters are typically going to abuse the kids, it is mostly to protect the scoutmasters from accusations. There are always witnesses, there’s no appearance of impropriety.
My credentials on the matter - earned Eagle Scout in '85, dad was longtime adult scout and participated in Woodbadge (Scoutmaster training program), and just after college I attended one scoutmaster training program.